The Ghent Altarpiece is a fifteenth century polyptych, made up of twenty four overall panel paintings. Whilst the content of the paintings are of Catholic iconography and biblical parables, the altarpiece itself has held an important role in Belgium’s national identity and Ghent’s political prominence within the Benelux countries. In order to discuss the ‘contemporary social, political and economic concerns’ one must consider both the contemporary concerns of the 15th century with modern contemporary criticisms. The altarpiece, located in the Cathedral of St Bavo, has been subject to the detriment of iconoclasm, over thirteen crimes, seven thefts and unresolved debate over the divided authorship between the Van Eyck brothers. In this essay I will discuss the celestial content in its relation to the Netherlandish Renaissance, religious themes relating to patron’s beliefs surrounding salvation, the thefts of the 19th century highlighting economic prestige, the political instability of Belgium, and contemporary social concerns surrounding its authorship. Culture is inherent in art, thus the religious, contemporary political, economic and social factors of the time are unavoidable when discussing this work.
Completed in 1432, Jan (1390-1441) and Hubert Van Eyck’s (1385-1426) realist, oil paintings have gained The Ghent Altarpiece the title of ‘one of the most significant representatives of Northern Renaissance art’. The altarpiece may be studied as a religious work due to the extensive Christian imagery, including key biblical stories and figures such as the Annunciation, Adam and Eve, the Fountain of Life and the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb. Closed, the upper panels depict prophets and sibyls, predicting the coming of Christ and below the Annunciation of Gabriel telling Mary that she will conceive Christ. The lower four panels depict statues of St John the Baptist and St John the Evangelist, due to the previous dedication of the cathedral to St John. They are flanked by the patrons Joos Vijd and his wife Elisabeth Borluut. (fig 1.) Whilst these themes are most prominently religious, it is painted from one point perspective, also known as ‘Renaissance perspective’ and features a sense of depth, emphasised in the city scape on the central left panel. The extreme attention to detail, down to the depth in the painted cast shadows of the frame, demonstrates Van Eyck’s monumental transition from Medieval to realist Renaissance art. As Lisa Deam contests ‘[a]t the beginning of Netherlandish painting, stands, looming and mysterious, the Ghent Altarpiece.’ Whilst it is separate in style from early Italian Renaissance painting, it is the first large scale work to show ‘the capability of oil painting’. The depiction of Adam and Eve in the periphery of the inside panels are especially realist and humanist, contrasted as imperfect to the grandeur of the central panels of heaven and God (fig 2.) The perspective, humanist and naturalist depictions of life and heaven and attention to realism and detail positions the altarpiece as a key religious work at the contemporary social cornerstone of change as the Netherlandish Renaissance is born.
Religion is intrinsic in the study of The Ghent Altarpiece as few of the general public were literate, making depiction of religion through image a key way for parish priests to communicate Catholic teachings. The altarpiece has been considered ‘a summary of Catholicism’ due to its extensive eucharistic symbolism. God as the saviour and redeemer is a key Renaissance re-interpretation, contrasting against previous medieval depiction of God as the punisher. The translation of the text on the altar of the lamb (fig 3.) reads ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ demonstrating a new depiction of God as one of forgiveness. There has been controversy over whether the central figure is God the father or the son. The pelican and vine imagery on the tapestry behind the figure are symbolic of Christ, yet the text behind him reads ‘This is God, the Almighty by reason of His divine majesty’. This can also be seen as a deliberate combination of elements, to show God as father and son, with the dove, representative of the Holy Spirit in the Adoration of the Lamb panel (fig. 3), depicting the full Holy Trinity. The commissioner, Joos Vijd, created the ‘Vijd Foundation’, with the primary goal of creating the altarpiece to confirm that his soul would go to heaven. This was a common practice as art historian, Barbara Lane contests, that ‘fifteenth-century Flemish painting was… executed for an elite ten percent of the population for their own pious edification and reinforcement.’ Salvation was therefore a large consideration in the creation of the altarpiece, ensuring Vijd and Borluut’s redemption. Therefore, the altarpiece, in terms of its content and purpose, is a fundamentally religious object.
Economic concerns surrounding the altarpiece can be divided into three main categories: incessant thefts of the nineteenth century, economic prestige inciting cultural importance to the city of Ghent and the significance of the wool trade. The Ghent Altarpiece has been described as the ‘most stolen art work of all time’. It has been the spoils of the Napoleonic wars, World War I and II, Nazi occupation, sold by St Bravo’s Cathedral churchwardens and subject to multiple crimes. The economic prestige of the altarpiece is illustrated by the sale by St Bavo’s churchwardens to Brussels art dealer L.J. van Nieuwenhuys in 1816, who sold it to merchant Edward Solly who went on to sell it to the Prussian government. This line of sale indicates the extent to which the altarpiece was valued, by art dealers and world leaders alike. The elemental artwork of the birth of the Netherlandish Renaissance is priceless, and this is internationally recognised. Whilst this provides the benefit of established cultural admiration and tourism, it endangers the artefact significantly. Secondly, due to its economic worth, the altarpiece has provided a sense of cultural and social importance to the city of Ghent. Ghent was one of the most prominent Netherlandish economic centres of the 1500s, with the altarpiece serving as a source of pilgrimage and artistic prowess, providing economic benefit in attracting the public to the city. For this reason, scholars have labelled Ghent the home of the ‘the literal and figurative progenitors of the entire Flemish school.’ The altarpiece was restored in 2012 at a staggering £800,000, emphasising its current importance to Ghent’s cultural and economic positions. Finally, Ghent and Joos Vijd had both profited from the medieval wool trade. Ghent, during the fifteenth century is described as a ‘leading urban player in the Low Countries’ focusing on textile production, in predominantly wool as a ‘main source of… prosperity’. This was a key origin of finance for Vijd in the creation of the altarpiece, and is highlighted through the depiction of the holy lamb. These economic concerns relate predominantly to the value and relation to the wider cultural context in Ghent, rather than the content of the painting itself.
Politically, the Ghent Altarpiece can be seen as representing the fragmentation of Belgian identity. Deam discusses the division of the altarpiece for over sixty years over three separate institutions of the Franco-Flemish Brussels Museum, the Berlin Museum in Germany and St Bavo’s Cathedral in Ghent. Belgium’s national identity was unsteady from the beginning, as the state formed in 1830 to the criticism that it was ‘the product of international diplomacy [rather] than natural development.’ It was problematic to link Belgian identity to the Flemish painted altarpiece when it was constantly fragmented, lessening the strength of Belgium’s cultural and subsequent political importance. Belgium was attempting, through the acquisition of the Ghent Altarpiece to accumulate Belgian tradition of past present and future into one cultural identity rooted in the old Flemish masters. There was also political tension between the Belgian government and local administrations of Ghent and Bruges over who had authority over the altarpiece. In 1861, Brussels acquired the panels of Adam and Eve but later returned them to Ghent in 1920. The full altarpiece in Ghent demonstrated a cultural importance and value of old Flemish masters. It can also be argued that there was a sense of political triumph as despite Germany, France, Prussia, Austria and greater Belgium’s attempts to acquire the altarpiece, it resides now permanently in Ghent.
Contemporary social concerns surrounding the Ghent Altarpiece include study of the division of authorship between the Van Eyck brothers and modern criticisms of if Jan and Hubert Van Eyck were the genuine artists of the work. The quatrain (fig. 4) located on the outer frame of the altarpiece, labels the altarpiece as begun by Hubert van Eyck and continued secondarily by Jan Van Eyck in 1432 was only discovered in 1823. The specifics of painting done by each brother remains unresolved, however, one can determine from perspective incongruities and depiction of Mediterranean fruits and fauna, which areas may be attributed to Jan. The outer panels of Adam and Eve (fig. 2) are from below and especially large, emphasised by Adam’s foot which appears to be stepping out of the painting and the contrast of the significantly smaller angels. These panels lack harmony in comparison to the rest of the inner panel composition, suggesting Jan’s later work, building upon his brother’s paintings. Jan was employed by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy as his court painter, causing his travels along the Iberian Peninsula in which he would have sketched and translated the vine leaves on Adam and the citrus fruit held by Eve into the altarpiece. Emile Renders explored the theory that ‘Hubert’ was ‘an invention of sixteenth century humanists and rhetoricians which was maintained by contemporary Ghent scholars to glorify their city at the expense of Bruges.’ For this reason, Belgian scholars prefer the title ‘L’agneau mystique’ instead of ‘The Ghent Altarpiece’. Henri Bouchot also questioned the authenticity of the artist of the altarpiece, arguing that no panel was definitively documented as being created by either one of the Van Eyck brothers. Authenticity has been considered as a contemporary social concern as the altarpiece has been valued largely due to its old Flemish masters legacy. Renders and Bouchot’s criticisms have since been disputed by Hugo van der Velden who argues that these attitudes are simply ‘wild hypothes[e]’ and a ‘fabrication… to claim the altarpiece, and thus the birth of early Netherlandish art.’ He explains that although the present inscription was a later addition, its content is authentic as it was copied from the original quatrain. This acts as a contemporary social concern in the way that authorship equates to social and national prestige and affirmation of Netherlandish heritage.
To conclude, The Ghent Altarpiece may be studied as a religious work due to the extensive Catholic iconography, and in its commission by Joos Vijd for the purpose of achieving salvation in heaven. It can also be seen as a key religious artefact in the turning of the social and cultural movement from medieval to Renaissance art. Economically, the altarpiece can be studied in terms of its victimisation of multiple heists and thefts, funding due to the wool trade and its significance in obtaining cultural distinction. Politically, the combination of fragmentation of the altarpiece and pressure from the Belgian government caused major instability in Ghent’s national identity. However, this can be interpreted as reconciled now that the altarpiece has been accumulated in the city of Ghent. Finally, the prominent contemporary social concerns of the altarpiece include the division of content created by which Van Eyck brother, and criticisms surrounding the authenticity of the artists. Hugo van der Velden refutes these ongoing criticisms, confirming the originality of the text but not the physical painting of the quatrain. The Ghent Altarpiece is multidimensional in its involvement in history, signifying the religious, political, economic and contemporary social importance of Van Eyck’s resplendent masterpiece.
Bibliography
Deam, Lisa. “Flemish versus Netherlandish: A Discourse of Nationalism.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, 1998.
Dhanens, Elisabeth, ‘Van Eyck’, A Division of Penguin Books Ltd, 1982.
Haemers, Jelle, and Wouter Ryckbosch. “A Targeted Public: Public Services in Fifteenth-Century Ghent and Bruges.” Urban History, vol. 37, no. 2, 2010.
Jolly, Penny, Howell. “More on the Van Eyck Question: Philip the Good of Burgundy, Isabelle of Portugal, and the Ghent Altarpiece.” Oud Holland, vol. 101, no. 4, 1987.
Lane, Barbara G. “Sacred versus Profane in Early Netherlandish Painting.” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 18, no. 3, 1988.
Pettersson, R, Jan Van Eyck and the Ghent Altarpiece. Journal of Visual Literacy, 37(3), 2018.
Rellihan, K. Following the Ghent Altarpiece, the World’s Most Stolen (and Well-Traveled) Artwork, Condé Nast Traveler, 2016.
Savage, Maddy. “Million Euro Makeover for Belgium’s Ghent Altarpiece.” BBC News, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news, 2012.
Van der Velden, Hugo. “The Quatrain of ‘The Ghent Altarpiece.’” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 35, no. 1/2, 2011.